Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

38Re: a hypothesis like the Farrer one

Expand Messages
  • Antonio Jerez
    Feb 17, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      On 98-02-17 Brian E. Wilson wrote:


      >Antonio Jerez wrote -
      >>As for myself I wholeheartedly endorse the part of the hypothesis of
      >>Lagrange, Farrer and Gundry-Morgenthaler that presume Luke's use of
      >>Matthew. I am more undecided about the form of the sources that Luke
      >>used besides Matthew (and Mark). They may have been both written
      >>and oral.
      >
      >Fair enough, if you wish to hold that view. I would only comment that
      >by itself the hypothesis that Luke used Matthew, Mark and other sources,
      >and that Matthew used Mark, is not a solution to the synoptic problem to
      >my way of thinking.


      I have not claimed that it is a total solution of the
      synoptic problem, but it is a big step on the way.
      And as I have said before - I do not believe it is
      possible to solve the synoptic problem in its entirety.
      How are we to know 2000 years later all the streams
      of oral traditions and written traditions that may have
      fed the gospels in the NT?

      >For one thing, Matthew contains hundreds of verses of material - about
      >half his gospel - not found in Mark. A solution to the synoptic problem
      >would, I think, have to be compatible with this phenomenon which can be
      >observed in any synopsis.

      That is true. Matthew contains hundreds of verses of material
      that are not found in Mark. Most scholars believe he got part
      of that material from a document called Q. I am sceptical
      about that. I think Matthew made up quite a lot of what we
      find in Q himself. A lot of the M material in Matthew was also
      written by Matthew. What Matthew inherited from tradition
      or made up by himself has to be decided on a case by case
      basis.

      >For another thing, is it not a rather odd idea that Luke should have
      >deliberately cannibalized two books (Matthew and Mark), already in use,
      >to produce a third book (Luke)? Was that the done thing in those days?

      I don't think it odd at all. Luke had a lot of reasons to
      write a gospel of his own. Mark had written a gospel
      for gentile Christians that contained to few sayings
      and made to radical a break with Judaism for Luke's
      taste. Matthew on the other hand was to much molded
      for Jewish-Christians for Luke to have much use of it in
      his gentile Church. So Luke took what he deemed was
      best out of both gospels, blended it with his own storys
      and got a gospel that was better suited for gentiles at the
      end of the first century.

      Best wishes

      Antonio
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic